deer creek watershed plan (combined).pdf

7/27/2019 Deer Creek Watershed Plan (combined).pdf

1/249

FORWARD

This document would not be possible without the extensive contributions of many organizations, committees and

individuals, listed below. We offer many thanks to all who wrote, edited, discussed, shaped, reviewed,

commented on and otherwise contributed to this watershed planning endeavor.

PARTNERS AND SPONSORS


2/249

City of Brentwood

City of Clayton

City of Frontenac

City of Ladue

City of Huntleigh

City of Maplewood

City of Rock Hill

City of University City

City of Webster Groves

Ladue Garden Club

Ecoworks Unlimited

St. Louis County

Mabel Dorn Reeder Foundation

Garden Club of St. Louis

This project is partially funded by The Mabel Dorn Reeder Foundation and US EPA Region 7 through the

Department of Natural Resources (subgrant number G09-NPS-13), under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act.

COMMUNITY LEADERS TASK FORCE

David Wilson East-West Gateway COG Environ. & Community Planning (Chairman)

Ellen Dailey City of Brentwood Assistant City Administrator

Terry Entwistle City of Brentwood P.E., City Engineer

Chris Krueger City of Clayton P.E., Civil Engineer

John Wulf City of Clayton Public Works Asst. Director

Honorable Harold Dielmann City of Creve Coeur Mayor

Jack Beirne City of Creve Coeur Stormwater Committee Chair

Denis Knock City of Des Peres P.E., City Engineer/Dir Public Works

Len Madalon City of Frontenac P.E., Director Stormwater Services

Bob Shelton City of Frontenac City AdministratorJeff Wappelhorst City of Frontenac Public Works Director

Peter von Gontard City of Huntleigh City Attorney

Dennis Bible City of Ladue Public Works Director

Honorable Irene S. Holmes City of Ladue Mayor

Anthony Traxler City of Maplewood Asst City Mgr/Public Works Dir.

Tiffany Davis City of Maplewood Assistant Public Works Director

Julie Morgan City of Rock Hill Mayor

George Liyeos City of Rock Hill City Administrator

Petree Eastman City of University City Assistant City Manager

Michael Harney City of Webster Groves Building Commissioner

Todd Hughes City of Webster Groves Assistant Director of Public Works

Michael Oppermann City of Webster Groves Parks and Recreation Director

Paul Verheyen City of Webster Groves Acting City Eng/Dir of Public Works

Ray Gawlik St. Louis County Stormwater Manager


3/249

Gary Moore Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District P.E., Program Manager

Bruce Litzsinger Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District P.E., Manager Environmental Compliance

Jeff Riepe Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District P.E., Civil Engineer

Laurie Farmer US Army Corps of Engineers St. Louis District Rep.

John Peakort US Army Corps of Engineers Chief, Gen Plan Formulation Sec

Matthew Shively US Army Corps of Engineers Biologist/Regulatory Project Mgr

COMMUNITY LEADERS STEERING COMMITTEE

Bill Aho EcoWorks Unlimited Watershed Consultant (Chairman)

Len Madalon City of Frontenac Director Stormwater Services

Todd Hughes City of Webster Groves Assistant Director of Public Works

David Wilson East West Gateway COG Environ. & Community Planning

Karla Wilson EcoWorks Unlimited Sustainability Consultant

Bruce Litzsinger MSD Mgr. Environmental Compliance

Ray Gawlik St. Louis County Stormwater Manager

FUNDRAISING SUB-COMMITTEE

Susan Maag Barr Engineering Landscape Architect (Chair)

Bob Shelton City of Frontenac City Manager

Len Madalon City of Frontenac Director Stormwater Services

Tiffany Davis City of Maplewood Assistant Public Works Director

George Liyeos City of Rock Hill City Manager


Deborah Frank Missouri Botanical Garden Sustainability VP

DEER CREEK WATERSHED TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ADVISORY GROUP

Gene Rovak Horner-Shifrin P.E., CFM, Senior Project (Chairman)

Ed Galbraith Barr Engineering Senior Environmental Scientist

Susan Maag Barr Engineering Landscape Architect

Ray Frankenberg BFA P.E., CFM, President

Wes Theissen BFA, Inc. Project Coordinator

Mark Birchler CDG Engineer P. E., Principal Engineer

David Yates CH2MHill Associate Project Manager

Edward Dermody Dermody & Associates Principal

David Wilson East-West Gateway COG Environment & Community Plng.


Bill Aho EcoWorks Unlimited P.E., Watershed Consultant

Len Madalon EDM Director Stormwater Services

Robin Reymond Geotechnology, Inc. Staff Scientist/Biologist

Michelina Hansel Farnsworth Group Stormwater Engineer

id d j


4/249


Susan McCrary Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District P.E., Civil Engineer

Jay Hoskins Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District P.E., Civil Engineer

Leslie Sawyer Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist. P.E., Civil Engineer

Deborah Frank Missouri Botanical Garden Sustainability Vice President

Greg Anderson Mo Dept. of Natural Resources Unit Chief, NPS Unit, WPP

John Johnson Mo Dept. of Natural Resources Environmental Specialist, NPS Unit, WPP

Trish Reilly Mo Dept. of Natural Resources Environmental Specialist, NPS Unit, WPP

Tom Prost Poehlman & Prost Vice President

Eric Karch River des Peres Watershed Coal. P.E., Water Resources Engineer

Theodore Smith River des Peres Watershed Coal. Americorps Volunteer

Klaus-Dieter Rausch SWT Design Landscape ArchitectJohn Peukert U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chief, Gen Plan Formulation Sec

Matt Shively U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Biologist/Regulatory Project Mgr

Robert Criss Washington University Prof of Earth & Planetary Sciences

MONITORING SUB-COMMITTEE

Robert Criss Washington University Prof Earth & Planetary Sciences (Chairman)

Danelle Haake Litzsinger Road Ecology Center Restoration Ecologist

Mark Montague Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist. EngineerTrish Reilly Mo Dept. of Natural Resources Environmental Specialist, NPS Unit, WPP

Elizabeth Hassenmueller Washington University Graduate Student

BIOLOGICAL SUB-COMMITTEE

Danelle Haake Litzsinger Road Ecology Center Restoration Ecologist (Chair)

Darlene Haun MDC Stream Team St. Louis Region S.T. Assistant

MODELING REVIEW SUB-COMMITTEE

Len Madalon EDM P.E., Vice President (Chairman)

Ed Galbraith Barr Engineering Senior Environmental Scientist

Susan Maag Barr Engineering RLA, Landscape Architect

Elise Ibendahl CH2MHill P.E., CFM Water Resources Eng.

Bill Aho EcoWorks Unlimited P.E., Watershed Consultant

Gary Moore Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District P.E., Program Manager

Jay Hoskins Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District P.E., Civil EngineerGeorge Tyhurst Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District P.E., Civil Engineer


Del Lobb Mo. Dept. of Conservation Resource Scientist

Eric Karch River des Peres Watershed Coalition P.E., President

MSD DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEES


5/249

Jay Hoskins Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District P.E., Civil Engineer

Bruce Litzsinger Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District P.E., Manager Environmental Compliance

Susan McCrary Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District P.E., Civil Engineer


Leslie Sawyer Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District P.E., Civil Engineer

Erin Snelling Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District P.E., Associate Engineer

Deborah Frank Missouri Botanical Garden Vice President Sustainability

Tracy Boaz Missouri Department of Conservation Private Lands Supervisor

DEER CREEK WATERSHED FRIENDS STEERING COMMITTEE

Mr. Rick Holton, Chairman

Ms. Maureen Helfers

Ms. Susan Lammert

Mr. John McPheeters

Dr. Mabel Purkerson

Mr. Randy Woods

DEER CREEK WATERSHED FRIENDS MARKETING SUB-COMMITTEE

Mr. Randy Woods, Chairman

Mr. Rick Holton

Dr. Mabel Purkerson

DEER CREEK TRIBUTARIES NAMING SUB-COMMITTEE

Ms. Stacy Arnold Outreach Coordinator (Chair)

Ms. Sally Cohn Clayton Citizen

Ms. Marguerite Garrick Clayton Citizen

Mr. Ken Bush Creve Coeur Citizen

Ms. Nancy Novack Creve Coeur Citizen

Dr. Mabel Purkerson Creve Coeur Citizen

Mr. Chuck Shepherd Frontenac Citizen

Ms. Margot Martin Frontenac Citizen

Mr. Peter Von Gontard Huntleigh CitizenMr. Bill Ruppert Kirkwood Citizen

Mr. Rick Holton Ladue Citizen

Mr. Bill Bascom Ladue Citizen

Ms. Fiona Woods Ladue Citizen

Mr. Randy Woods Ladue Citizen


6/249

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORWARD ......................... ......................... ......................... .......................... .............................. ...... F-1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................... .......................... ......................... .......................... ... 1-1

History of Watershed Planning Efforts ............................................................................................................1-1

Deer Creek Watershed Alliance.......................................................................................................................1-2

Citizen Input into the Watershed Planning Process......................................................................... 1-3

Planning Committees..................................................................................................................... 1-3

Additional Key Partnerships .............. ................ ............. ............... ............. ................ ............. ....... 1-4

Watershed Description ...................................................................................................................................1-5

Physical and Natural Features.........................................................................................................................1-7

Streams ................ ............... ............. ............... ............. ............... ............ ................ ...... ............. ... 1-7

Geology......................................................................................................................................... 1-7

Soils............................................................................................................................................... 1-9

TopoGraphy................................................................................................................................. 1-13

Land Cover................................................................................................................................... 1-15

Flora and Fauna........................................................................................................................... 1-15

Riparian Corridor .............. ................ ............. ............... ............. ................ ............. .......... ........... 1-16

Hydrology.................................................................................................................................... 1-16

Precipitation................................................................................................................................ 1-17

FEMA Floodplain.......................................................................................................................... 1-17

Demographic Characteristics.........................................................................................................................1-18


7/249

Sources of Information ................................................................................................................................. 1-22

CHAPTER 2: ELEMENT A. IDENTIFYING IMPAIRMENTS ............................. ............................. .. 2-1

Watershed Inventory ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1

List of Stakeholder Concerns .................... ............ ................ ............... ............. ............... ...... ........ 2-1

Existing Watershed Data ................................................................................................................ 2-3

303(D) Impairments ....................................................................................................................... 2-6

Water Quality Analysis ................................................................................................................... 2-7

Previous Watershed Assessment Studies and Reports .................................................................. 2-10

Identifying Nonpoint Source Stressors .......................................................................................................... 2-12

Impervious Surface Cover ............................................................................................................ 2-12

Channel Straightening and Loss of Riparian Corridor .................................................................... 2-13

Soil Compaction from Construction Practices ............................................................................... 2-13

Future Downspout Disconnections ............................................................................................... 2-14

Yard & Open Space Maintenance Patterns ................................................................................... 2-14

Animal Waste .............................................................................................................................. 2-16

Road Salt ..................................................................................................................................... 2-16

Climate Change ............................................................................................................................ 2-17

Identifying Point Source Stressors ................................................................................................................. 2-17

Permitted Activities ..................................................................................................................... 2-17

Sanitary Sewers ........................................................................................................................... 2-18

Industrial Corridor ....................................................................................................................... 2-19

Summary of Watershed Impairments, Pollutants, and Indicators ................................................................. 2-20

Identifying Critical Areas ............................................................................................................................... 2-21


8/249

CHAPTER 4: ELEMENT C. MANAGEMENT MEASURES ............................. ........................... ......... 4-1

Goals for Deer Creek Watershed ..................................................................................................................... 4-1

Proposed Short-Term projects for Green Infrastructure Bioretention Systems ............................................... 4-7

NPDES Permit Discharge and Compliance Information ................................................................................... 4-8

Local Municipality Stormwater Management Plans ........................................................................................ 4-9

City of Frontenac Stormwater Master Plan ..................................................................................... 4-9

City of Clayton Stormwater Master Plan ....................................................................................... 4-11

City of Richmond Heights Stormwater and Sewer Magagement Program ................ ............... ...... 4-12

CHAPTER 5: ELEMENT D. TECHNICAL & FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... 5-1

Implementation of Management Measures ............. .......................... .......................... ................. 5-1

Technical & Financial Assistance for Deer Creek Watershed Management Plan............................................ 5-10

American Society of Civil Engineers .............................................................................................. 5-10

Focus St. Louis ............................................................................................................................. 5-10

Great Rivers Greenway District .................................................................................................... 5-10

Ladue High School........................................................................................................................ 5-10

Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District ........................................................................................... 5-10

Missouri Botanical Garden ........................................................................................................... 5-11

Missouri Department of Conservation ............. ............... ............ ............... ............. ............... ....... 5-11

Missouri Department of Natural Resources & U.S. EPA Region 7......................... ............. ............. 5-11

Area Municipalities ...................................................................................................................... 5-11

River Des Peres Watershed Coalition............................................................................................ 5-12

Soil and Water Conservation District ............................................................................................ 5-12

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ....................................................................................................... 5-12


9/249

Creating a Message ......................................................................................................................................... 6-2

Packaging and distributing the message for various audiences: ...................................................................... 6-3

Evaluating education & outreach program:..................................................................................................... 6-4

CHAPTER 7: ELEMENT F. - SCHEDULE ........................ ......................... ......................... .................. 7-1

CHAPTER 8: ELEMENT G. - MILESTONES ............................. ........................... ............................ ... 8-1

Setting Goals & Selecting Indicators ............................................................................................ 8-1

CHAPTER 9: ELEMENT H. - PERFORMANCE ................................ ............................. .......................... 1

CHAPTER 10: ELEMENT I. - MONITORING ..................... ........................... ........................... ........ 10-1

Monitoring Indicators for Initial Deer Creek Watershed Projects .................................................................. 10-1

First Program Bioretention Projects ........................................................................................................... 10-1

Second Program Infiltration Effectiveness .................................................................................................. 10-5

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Implemented Green Infrastructure

Demonstration Projects on Water Quality .................................................................................................... 10-6

Evaluating & Adapting the Plan..................................................................................................................... 10-7

Monitoring Overall Goals and Progress ......................................................................................................... 10-7

App end ix: USGS Water-Data Rep ort 2009, Deer Creek at Maplewoo d ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1-A

App end ix: Stakeholder Areas of Concern .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2-A

App end ix: S tre am Team Visual Inspection Data Deer Creek Watershed .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2- B

App end ix: S tre am USGS Water Quality Data @ Maplewoo d Monitoring Stati on .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2-C

App end ix: Deer Creek Industrial Users, Pretreatment Information Manag ement System

(PIMS) Database .......................... ........................ ......................... ......................... ........................... 2-D

App end ix: Analysis of Stream T eam Water Quality D ata . .2-E

App end ix: Watershed Management Mod els .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 3-A

App end ix: D eer Cre ek Subwatersheds Land Use and Soil Types .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 3-B


10/249


11/249

Deer Creek Watershed Management Plan

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Map 1-1 River Des Peres Watershed

Source: East West Gateway Council of Governments

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

HISTORY OF WATERSHED PLANNING EFFORTS

The Deer Creek Watershed is a sub-watershed of the River des Peres Watershed. Due to the size and complexity of

the River des Peres watershed, any watershed planning efforts need to occur on the sub-watershed (12-digit HUC)

size. The Deer Creek Watershed is a good candidate for planning efforts due to the amount of citizen involvement,

previous studies conducted, and historical water data available. Implementation efforts in the Deer Creek

Watershed will also improve the Riverdes Peres. In addition, other planning

efforts for the remaining sub-watersheds

of the River des Peres will also be

necessary in order to remove the River

des Peres from the 303(d) list of

impaired waters, which is currently listed

as impaired for low DO and chlorides.

The earliest known research conducted

in the Deer Creek Watershed was A

Study of Water Quality in Deer Creek,

conducted August of 1963. This study

was completed by the Missouri Water

Pollution Control Board following the

construction of a trunk sewer from theCity of Kirkwood to its confluence with

River Des Peres. Four sites were chosen

along Deer Creek and tests were

conducted on the physical, chemical,

biological, and bacteriological

characteristics of the creek over a three-

day period. Since then, numerousstudies have been carried out for the

purpose of improving the management

of Deer Creek, including multiple FEMA

and SWMM modeling efforts, as well as

water quality monitoring by


12/249



simulates watershed discharge, stream flow depths and velocities for both existing and future development using a

2, 15 and 100-year rainfall event.

A complete literature survey of previous studies conducted in the watershed can be found in Chapter 2 of this

document.

In April of 2008 a group of citizens concerned about Deer Creek formed a Creeks Committee and approached

Missouri Botanical Garden to sponsor their work. Missouri Botanical Garden agreed, provided the scope of the

project included the entire Deer Creek Watershed. In July of 2008 Missouri Botanical Garden received a planning

grant from the Mabel Dorn Reeder Foundation to study the feasibility of a Deer Creek Watershed Initiative. The

goal of the study was to examine the feasibility of implementing plant-based strategies to reduce erosion, property

loss, infrastructure damage, flooding, sedimentation, and water pollution in the watershed. Dr. Peter Raven,

President of Missouri Botanical Garden, met with Jeff Theerman, Executive Director of Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer

District, to explore a partnership between the two institutions in the watershed. Dr. Peter Raven also hosted a

meeting of 30 citizen leaders in September 2009 to seek their guidance in the planning process.

In June 2009, a 319 grant (G09-NPS-13) from U.S. EPA through Missouri Department of Natural Resources was

awarded to Missouri Botanical Garden for a Missouri Botanical Garden Deer Creek Watershed Initiative. The goal ofthe grant-funded project was to reduce organic waste pollution in the Deer Creek watershed, primarily through the

implementation of bioretention and other green infrastructure methods. Strategies included working with schools,

demonstration projects, data collection, and community outreach.

DEER CREEK WATERSHED ALLIANCE

To help facilitate cleaner, safer water in the

Deer Creek Watershed, Missouri Botanical

Garden established a Deer Creek Watershed

Alliance in partnership with Metropolitan St.

Louis Sewer District, Washington University,

East-West Gateway Council of Governments,

American Society of Civil Engineers, Great

Rivers Greenway, Missouri Department of

Conservation, Missouri Department of NaturalResources, Missouri Stream Teams, River des

Peres Watershed Coalition, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, St. Louis County, local garden clubs,

local municipalities, and the Deer Creek

Watershed Friends a citizen led Missouri


13/249



CITIZEN INPUT INTO THE WATERSHED PLANNING PROCESS

Deer Creek Watershed Friends, a citizen-led committee operating with the guidance and support of Missouri

Botanical Garden, actively encourages citizens to participate in the watershed planning process.

Mechanisms for generating this input include monthly email newsletters, a website (www.deercreekalliance.org),

two to four Deer Creek Friends meetings per year, and annual citizen engagement projects.

At the September 2009 Deer Creek Watershed Friends Quarterly meeting, the watershed planning process was

described to the 55 attendees, seeking their input on issues and concerns they, as citizens, have regarding water

quality in the watershed. A form was distributed, as well as made available on the Deer Creek Watershed Friends

website for this purpose.

Invitations to submit information and ideas have also been solicited through the email newsletters, and at creek

naming committee and other citizen meetings. Opportunities to provide input into and feedback to the plan will

continue at future Deer Creek Watershed Friends meetings.

Anyone who registers for the monthly email newsletter is considered a member of the Deer Creek Watershed

Friends. As of March 2010, there are 425 active email newsletter recipients/ Deer Creek Watershed Friends

participants.

PLANNING COMMITTEES

Two additional committees have been established to facilitate the engagement of those with jurisdictional

authority and those with technical expertise to actively participate in the development of a watershed plan. These

committees are responsible for identifying issues and concerns, reviewing and editing goals and objectives, and

recommending strategies and management measures that are to be documented in the plan.

DEER CREEK WATERSHED COMMUNITY LEADERS TASK FORCE

The Deer Creek Watershed intersects with all or part of 21 municipalities in St. Louis County. In addition, other

entities with jurisdictional or planning authority in the watershed include Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District,

East-West Gateway Council of Governments, St. Louis County Government, Great Rivers Greenway District,

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A Deer Creek Watershed

Community Leaders Task Force has been established, chaired by David Wilson, East-West Gateway Council of

Governments. Invitations to participate were sent out on East-West Gateway stationary under Acting Director

Maggie Hales signature.


14/249



COMMUNITY LEADERS STEERING COMMITTEE

At the February 2010 Community Leaders Task Force meeting, a Steering Committee for the Community Leaders

Task Force was established. The Steering Committee reviews and edits goals identified by the task force. The

Steering Committee also identifies strategies and management measures to recommend to the Community Leaders

Task force.

FUNDRAISING SUBCOMMITTEE

The purpose of the Fundraising Subcommittee is to identify and pursue sources of financial support for theimplementation of the watershed plan. The first meeting of the Fundraising subcommittee was In November 2009.

A second meeting was held in August 2010.

DEER CREEK WATERSHED TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP

The Technical Advisory Group includes representatives from government agencies, consulting firms, and non-profit

organizations with technical expertise to offer. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) coordinates thiscommittee, with Chairman of the ASCE Water and Environment Committee Gene Rovak from Horner & Shifrin as

committee chairman.

The first meeting was conducted at the St. Louis Engineers Club in January 2010. Watershed goals and potential

modeling strategies were discussed in the first meeting. In addition, at the first technical committee meeting, a

sub-committee to review and recommend a model(s) for Deer Creek, and a Biological Sub-Committee to review and

recommend processes and procedures for analyzing biological data were formed. At subsequent meetings in spring

and fall of 2010, objectives and strategies were discussed, and the draft management plan reviewed.

ADDITIONAL KEY PARTNERSHIPS

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS-ST. LOUIS SECTION

The American Society of Civil Engineers-St. Louis Section organizes and chairs Deer Creek Watershed Technical

Committee activities.

EAST WEST GATEWAY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

East-West Gateway Council of Governments is the regional planning agency for the Greater St. Louis Region. They


15/249



Community Leaders Task Force and Deer Creek Technical Committee. In addition, MSD leads regional stormwater

NPDES management efforts, and has initiated the development of a regional plan to address flood concerns.

Furthermore, MSD has developed and submitted to U.S. EPA a plan for addressing CSO discharges in the St. Louis

region, and is developing a plan to address SSOs in the region as well.

MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN

Missouri Botanical Garden plays a facilitation role between project partners on watershed planning efforts.

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & U.S. EPA REGION 7

The watershed planning process for the Deer Creek Watershed is partially funded by US EPA Region 7 through the

Department of Natural Resources (sub grant number G09-NPS-13), under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. In

addition, Missouri Department of Natural Resources staff provides technical expertise to assist in watershed

planning efforts.

MUNICIPAL PARTNERSHIPS

The cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Creve Coeur, Des Peres, Frontenac, Huntleigh, Ladue, Maplewood, Rock Hill,

University City and Webster Groves are active participants in the watershed planning process. Each of these

municipalities has a representative participating in the Community Leaders Task Force. In addition, the City of

Frontenac and the City of Clayton have separately conducted their own stormwater master planning efforts.

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

For the purpose of assisting with this planning effort, Washington University conducts water quality analyses of

data compiled from Deer Creek water quality monitoring to help inform the watershed planning process.

WATERSHED DESCRIPTION

The Deer Creek Watershed is a sub-watershed of the River des Peres watershed, which is included in the St. Louis

Tributaries (HUC Number 07140101 and referred to as #21 on Map 1-3) to the Mississippi River. Deer Creek

Watershed (HUC 071401010504) drains approximately 37 square miles (23,500 acres) of St. Louis County. Deer

Creek originates in the northwest in Creve Coeur near Interstate 270 and Olive, and flows in a southeasterly

direction approximately 10.76 miles before it enters the River des Peres at Maplewood, near Interstate 44 and

McCausland.


16/249



Figure 1-3 Regional Watershed Boundaries (above)

Source: East-West Gateway Council of Governments

Figure 1-4 Deer Creek Watershed Streams (below)



17/249



PHYSICAL AND NATURAL FEATURES

STREAMS

The major contributing streams within the watershed are Deer Creek, stream order 4; Twomile Creek, stream order

3; Sebago Creek, stream order 2; Shady Grove Creek, stream order 2; and Black Creek, stream order 3 (Map 1-4).

For several miles above Twomile Creek, Deer Creek is a third order stream. In a 1993 report from the Litzsinger

Ecology Center (LREC), which is located five miles upstream from the confluence with River Des Peres, Deer Creek is

described as perennial stream although in mid- summer when precipitation is least and evapo-transpiration is

highest it may experience only intermittent pools. (Ochs, 1992).

GEOLOGY

Geology in the St. Louis region consists of limestone, sandstone, and shale. Areas north of the River des Peres

watershed consist of sandstone, whereas areas further south in the watershed lay on alluvium deposits from

former flood events. Northern reaches of the River des Peres watershed itself as well as the northern part of its

sub-watershed, Deer Creek, include Pennsylvanian limestone and sandstone, whereas western portions of the RiverDes Peres watershed and the southern half of the Deer Creek Watershed include Mississippian limestone and shale.

(Map 1-5)

This region contains the oldest surface rocks in the state; limestone that was formed about 345 million years ago

during the later part of the Mississippian Period. Meramecian series is a sequence of Mississippian rocks in the

Mississippi River Valley and is named for the Meramec River.

These rocks show that during the Late Mississippian, the land was alternately above and below sea level. When

the sea advanced, limestone (and occasionally shale) was deposited. When the sea retreated, erosion set in.

The Mississipian limestone contains chert (or flint). Because chert is much harder and more resistant to weathering

than limestone, erosion of the softer limestone has left a thick blanket of chert gravel on the hilltops and ridges.

The Deer Creek watershed consists of Residuum which is a cherty limestone clay and gravel -- up to 50 feet thick.

(Map 1-6)


18/249



Map 1-6 Deer Creek Surface Geology

Source: East West Gateway Council of Govts.

Map 1-6 Deer Creek Surface Geology


Map 1-5 Deer Creek Bedrock Geology



19/249



KARST TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOGRAPHY

The region has an extensive karst landscape due to the presence of limestone. The Ozark Plateaus aquifer system(Map 1-7)generally is characterized as a carbonate aquifer with numerous karst features throughout, including

caves, springs, sink holes and losing streams that are created as groundwater dissolves soluble rock such as

limestone or dolomite. Karst aquifers have relatively free exchange of surface and ground water with limited

geologic restrictions on water movement, which makes the aquifers susceptible to surface contamination.

Microbiological activity in ground water can be affected by the presence of fractures, faults, and karst features such

as losing streams, sinkholes, or solution channels in ground-water recharge areas that can affect the ability of

viruses and bacteria to enter and move rapidly through the aquifers.

Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed of calcium carbonate. Approximately 166 sinks holes, rounded

depression in the landscape formed when an underground cavity collapses, have been identified throughout the

watershed (Map 1-8). A majority of the sink holes are concentrated in the central area of the watershed between

Ladue Road, Brentwood Blvd., and Rock Hill Road. The sinkholes tend to follow the creek drainages.

SOILS

In the River des Peres watershed, the majority of soils have high runoff potential and low permeability, with some

areas of lower runoff and higher permeability interspersed in the region. The majority of soils in the River des Peres

watershed are classified as Group D soils using the NRCS-USDA soil classification system. Group D soils have very

high runoff potential and very slow infiltration rate. They also have the highest clay content (greater than 40%) of

any group. Small portions of the River des Peres watershed are classified as Group C and Group B soils. Group C

soils have moderately slow infiltration rates and contain between 20 and 40 percent clay. Group B soils have

moderately high infiltration rates and are composed of 10 to 20 percent clay. Within the Deer Creek Sub-Watershed, 51% of the area is characterized by Group D soils, 39% Group C, and 6% Group B, with 4% not rated.

(Map 1-9)

Considering more specific soil types, much of the northern portions of the River des Peres watershed include soils in

urban classes, which generally have low permeability and high runoff. Fishpot soil series, which have moderately

low permeability, occur close the river. Menfro soil types with silt and loam mixtures and moderate permeability

occur in various areas throughout the watershed, sometimes with karst. Winfield soils with moderate permeability

also occur near Deer and Mackenzie Creeks in the River des Peres watershed.

Within the Deer Creek Sub-watershed, approximately 50 to 60 percent consists of upland, which are classified as

the Menfo-Winfield-Urban land association by the USDA-SCS (Map 1-10). This classification consists of gently

sloping to very steep slopes, and well drained and moderately well drained soils. The remaining 40 to 50 percent of


20/249



Map 1-7 Ozark Plateau Aquifer


Map 1-8 Deer Creek Karst Areas and Sinkholes



21/249



Hydrologic Soil Groups

A: High Infiltration Rate

B: Moderate Infiltration Rate

C: Slow Infiltration Rate

D: Very Slow Infiltration Rate

Not Rated

Group Type Acres Percent

A 0 0%

B 1,492 6%

C 9,057 39%

D 11,985 51%

Not Rated 1,009 4%

Map 1-9: Hydrologic Soil GroupsSource: University of Missouri Center for Applied Research

and Environmental Systems (CARES)

Map 1-10: Deer Creek Watershed Soil Types



22/249




Soil Type Acres Percent

Fishpot-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes 1,587 6.75%

Iva-Urban land complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes 1,305 5.54%

Menfro-Urban land complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes 560 2.38%

Urban land, bottomland, 0 to 3 percent slopes 545 2.32%

Urban land, upland, 0 to 5 percent slopes 889 3.78%

Urban land-Harvester complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes 5,394 22.92%

Urban land-Harvester complex, 9 to 20 percent slopes 2,875 12.22%

Urban land-Harvester complex, karst, 2 to 9 percent slopes 1,279 5.43%

Wilbur silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded 276 1.17%

Winfield silt loam, 9 to 14 percent slopes, eroded 245 1.04%

Winfield-Urban land complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes 1,980 8.41%



Other individually less than 1.00% 1445 6.10%

Total 23,543 100%

The particular combination of soils, topography and underlying geology of this watershed present unique

challenges which need to be carefully considered in the selection, design and implementation of the methods

employed for effective stormwater management. Many of the soil types in the watershed are characterized as

having slow or very slow infiltration rates which significantly limit stormwater volume reduction though ground

infiltration.

Low infiltration also reduces the bio-remediation of organic and inorganic contaminants and pollutants in

stormwater. The ability of these soils to support plant material can be further degraded due to compaction from

construction activities. As a result, some soils in the watershed may need to be amended or restored in order to

achieve the intents of the BMPs, such as volume reduction and improving water quality by elimination of

contaminants.


23/249



HIGHLY ERODIBLE LANDS

Where steep slopes or pavement can convert

90% of rainfall to runoff, highly erodible land is

subject to erosion and will subsequently

deposit this sediment at a point where flow

velocity slows. Because stormwater BMPs are

often at a low point or sump, this will be the

location where sedimentation will occur. We

need to be aware of the locations of erodible

areas in the watershed so that the right BMP ischosen for these areas. For example, BMPs

that utilize infiltration and filtration will likely

require a higher level of maintenance in these

areas, and this may impact our suggestion of

which BMP is appropriate for areas downgrade

of highly erodible soils. Sediment deposition

from soil erosion is the primary factor in

reducing the effectiveness and functionality of

stormwater BMPs.

TOPOGRAPHY

Consideration of slope, infiltration rate, soil composition, erosion potential, underlying geography,

contaminant, and sediment loads will influence the location and selection of stormwater BMP

methods and their effectiveness, as well as the maintenance required to keep them functioning as

intended.

The drainage patterns within the watershed are reflected in Map 1-12.

WELLS

Map 1-13provides information about wells that are certified by the State of Missouri [Missouri

Department of Natural Resources] The information about well location well ownership well

Highly Erodible Land

Potentially Highly Erodible Land

Not Highly Erodible Land

Not Rated


24/249



Map 1-12 Deer Creek Topography

Source: East-West Gateway Council of Govts.

Map 1-13 Deer Creek Well Site Locations

Source: Missouri Spatial Data Information Service, 2007.


25/249



LAND COVER

The land cover is 82.21% urban with just 8.42% forest, 8.38% grassland, 0.47% crop land, 0.40%water, and 0.12% wetland. Map 1-14was obtained from CARES and characterizes the upper

watershed as primarily low density urban, and the lower watershed as primarily high density urban.

FLORA AND FAUNA

The Deer Creek Watershed is in the middle of a major metropolitan area with a total population of

2.5 million, and yet the creek and riparian corridor provides important habitat and functions as atravel corridor for an assortment of wildlife species such as deer, coyotes, fox, raccoon, mink, great

blue herons, kingfishers, various ducks, turtles, fish, frogs, and macro-invertebrates.

Although large lots in the central portion of the watershed provide minimally disturbed habitat for

wildlife many parts of the stream bank backyards and other natural areas throughout the

Map 14: Land Cover Deer Creek

Source: University of Missouri CARES


26/249



RIPARIAN CORRIDOR

A geomorphic study conducted by Intuition & Logic, Inc for the Litzsinger Road Ecology Center foundthat prior to 1953, much of the Deer Creek Watershed from the center (at mile 5) north to highway

40/64 was undeveloped forest. Over the next thirty years, suburban development converted the

forest to large residential lots and the channel was straightened to eliminate nearly 1000 linear feet

of stream. Hardening of the stream banks and straightening of the channel also contributed

negatively to the health of Deer Creek by increasing the velocity of water and disconnecting the

stream channel from its floodplain. Similar changes have occurred in smaller tributary streams, all of

which serve to increase volume and time of concentration in flood events.

Many parts of the stream bank along Deer Creek are highly eroded and the stream has become

incised and wider in places. Remarkably, Deer Creek still maintains its more natural flow in certain

areas where it has room to move. For example, in the area of the Litzsinger Road Ecology Center,

managed by Missouri Botanical Garden, six meanders, or bends, represent the natural way in which

water tends to flow as it is pulled by gravity, following the path of least resistance. These meanders

also serve an important function in the dynamics of the stream by helping to create in-stream

habitat such as riffles, runs, and pools. This natural flow with meanders and bends is possible

because the natural riparian buffer is greater than 100 feet throughout the LREC and its 2500 linear

feet of stream channel.

HYDROLOGY

Like most streams in urbanized areas, Deer

Creek suffers from a dramatically alteredhydrology characterized by flash flood events

during times of heavy rains and by channel

fragmentation during dry periods. Historically,

Deer Creek was a perennial flowing stream

throughout most parts of its watershed. Deep-

rooted perennial plants with extensive fibrous

root systems from native prairie, oak savannah,

and oak woodlands that comprised much of the

vegetative cover in this area prior to European

settlement would have permitted rains to soak

into the soil, entering into the groundwater

system and slowly charging the creek with

k h d l


27/249



Creek watershed experience a rapid rise after even a small rain event, and tend to be flashy. The

U.S. Geological Survey stream gaging stations document this rapid rise and fall of stream level (Figure

1-2 above and Appendix 1A). Currently the stream is forced to transport much larger amounts ofwater and sediment through its banks even during small rain events. In large storms, the Creek and

its tributaries flood beyond its banks. Major floods have occurred in Deer Creek on five occasions in

the last half-century: June 1957, April 1973, April 1979, July 1991, and September 2008.

PRECIPITATION

According to CARES data, precipitation in

the St. Louis region has ranged from

thirty-nine to forty-two inches of

precipitation annually from 1971-2000

(Map 1-15). This rate is among the higher

precipitation rates in the nation. This

high precipitation rate combined with

urban development leads to saturated

soils and steep flooding spikes as shownin Figure 1-2.

39-40 inches

40-41 inches

41-42 inches

FEMA FLOODPLAIN

Significant development has been permitted in the flood plain of Deer Creek and its tributaries. This

development occurred before the adoption of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and the

National Floodplain Insurance Program (NFIP) by the cities and county. A majority of the structures

affected by floodwaters include commercial and industrial structures (such as manufacturing

Min. Annual

(in.)

Max. Annual

(in.)

Avg. Annual

(in.)

39.81 41.13 40.33

Map 15: Precipitation Deer Creek

Source: University of Missouri CARES

D C k W t h d M t Pl


28/249



DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

POLITICAL DEMOGRAPHY

The Deer Creek watershed lies completely within central St. Louis County, (~2,513 persons per

square mile) and includes all or parts of 21 municipalities. The number of municipalities involved in

land management decisions in the watershed complicates any concerted effort at watershed

planning. Although one sewer district, the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD), is

responsible for stormwater planning and preparation of the Phase II stormwater permit for the

larger communities, each community is responsible for development and enforcement of its own

practices on publicly owned land and for management of development within its borders. In

Map 16: Flood Plain Deer Creek




29/249



POPULATION LEVELS

The population in the

watershed was

approximately 93,000 in

2000. Employment in the

watershed at the time of

the 2000 census was

108,000. Table 1-1

provides a list of all themunicipalities and the

estimated population

employed in the

watershed and living in the

watershed.

Data Source: East-West Gateway

Council of Governments

POPULATION DENSITY

Map 1-17was produced by

the Center for Applied

Research and

Environmental Systems

(CARES) and depicts the 2000 U.S. census data for the Deer Creek Watershed. The highest

population density is located along the east and southeast portions of the watershed.

LAND USE

Land use in the Deer Creek Watershed in 2008 is reflected Map 1-18. The watershed is 71%

residential, primarily made up of single-family homes. In addition, 11% of the watershed is allocated

f k ti l i lt l 9% f th t h d i d f

Location (Municipality) Employment

(LEHD) 2006

Population

2000

% of municipal

Population in

Watershed

Deer Creek Watershed 108,159 92,981

Brentwood 14096 7693 100%

Clayton 27056 9998 78%Country Life Acres 36 81 100%

Creve Coeur 18328 6398 39%

Crystal Lake Park 12 457 100%

Des Peres 3024 3240 38%

Frontenac 4441 3483 100%

Glendale 588 5245 91%

Huntleigh 17 323 100%

Kirkwood 4207 6794 25%

Ladue 8901 8645 100%

Maplewood 4369 5558 60%

Olivette 88 1926 26%

Richmond Heights 9783 8462 88%

Rock Hill 2159 4765 100%

Shrewsbury 328 524 8%

Town and Country 1937 1229 12%

University City 2441 3597 10%

Warson Woods 553 1970 100%Webster Groves 5581 12297 53%

Westwood 144 284 100%

Table 1-1: Population by Municipality, Deer Creek Watershed



30/249



Map 1-17: Census

Data Deer Creek

Source: University of

Missouri CARES

Map 1-18: Existing Land Use Data Deer Creek

Source: East West Gatewa Council of Govts.



31/249



ECONOMICS

The St. Louis county population as a whole grew rapidly from 1960-1990 but since that time it hasflattened out and even declined slightly. The Deer Creek watershed is situated in the center of the

county and with a diversity of cities also represents and experiences the general trends of the

county.

The Deer Creek area is predominantly residential, however the floodplain areas of Deer Creek and

Black Creek have a variety of small businesses and light industry most of which has been there for

several decades or longer.

Place Name2000 Census

Population

2008

Population

Estimate

2000

Population

Within Deer

Creek

2000 White

Population

Within

Deer Creek

2000 Black

Population

Within

Deer Creek

2000 Other

Population

(Including

Hispanic)

Within

Deer Creek

Brentwood city 7693 7182 7678 7027 135 516Clayton city 12825 16088 10011 8191 950 870

Country Life Acres village 81 79 81 70 1 10

Creve Coeur city 16500 16868 6398 5893 122 383

Crystal Lake Park city 457 440 441 425 0 16

Des Peres city 8592 8603 3240 3141 25 74

Frontenac city 3483 3546 3483 3286 28 169

Glendale city 5767 5490 5245 5065 51 129

Huntleigh city 323 328 323 314 0 9

Kirkwood city 27324 26760 6818 6524 88 206

Ladue city 8645 8193 8641 8308 76 257

Maplewood city 9228 8626 5558 4188 835 535

Olivette city 7438 7449 1930 1760 88 82

Richmond Heights city 9602 9093 8462 6649 1252 561

Rock Hill city 4765 4580 4765 3206 1299 260

Shrewsbury city 6644 6235 524 516 0 8

St. Louis city 348189 354361 12 9 2 1

Town and Country city 10894 10710 1225 1086 15 124

University City city 37428 36289 3584 2471 670 443

Warson Woods city 1983 1865 1946 1897 10 39

Webster Groves city 23230 22335 12297 10517 1368 412

Westwood village 284 289 284 272 9 3



32/249

g


Median

household

income in1999

Per

capita

incomein 1999

PovertyRate

Entirely

WithinWatershed?

Brentwood city, Missouri 50,643 30,645 5.5 YES

Clayton city, Missouri 64,184 48,055 7.7 NO

Country Life Acres village, Missouri 193,271 100,617 3.3 NO

Creve Coeur city, Missouri 75,032 47,905 2.9 NO

Crystal Lake Park city, Missouri 78,441 55,596 3.1 YES

Des Peres city, Missouri 96,433 40,916 1.5 NO

Frontenac city, Missouri 119,508 64,532 1.2 YES

Glendale city, Missouri 75,279 35,136 0.4 NO

Huntleigh city, Missouri 200,000+ 104,420 1.3 YES

Kirkwood city, Missouri 55,122 32,012 4.6 NO

Ladue city, Missouri 141,720 89,623 2.1 YES

Maplewood city, Missouri 29,151 19,087 14.1 NO

Olivette city, Missouri 57,669 32,379 4.3 NO

Richmond Heights city, Missouri 50,557 37,217 7.3 NO

Rock Hill city, Missouri 47,869 25,803 5.1 YES

Shrewsbury city, Missouri 40,896 27,479 8.7 NOTown and Country city, Missouri 139,967 69,347 2.5 NO

University City city, Missouri 40,902 26,901 14.7 NO

Warson Woods city, Missouri 87,330 46,575 2.7 YES

Webster Groves city, Missouri 60,524 31,327 4.8 NO

Westwood village, Missouri 119,618 80,990 0.7 YES


SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Missouri Spatial Data Information Service www.msdis.missouri.edu

St. Louis County Department of Planning GIS Service Center www.co.st-louis.mo.us/plan/gis/

Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District www.stlmsd.com

Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Service Center

Digital Flood Insurance Map Databases www.msc.fema.gov

U.S. Department of Agriculture Geospatial Data Gateway http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/



33/249

Chapter 2: Element a. Identifying Impairment

CHAPTER 2ELEMENT A. - IDENTIFYING IMPAIRMENTS

The Deer Creek Watershed is a major sub-watershed of the River des Peres Watershed. River des Peres is

listed as impaired for chloride due to nonpoint source urban runoff on the 2008 303(d) list and shown on the

2010 proposed list as impaired for low dissolved oxygen with the source shown as unknown. Any water

quality improvements in the Deer Creek Watershed will have a positive effect on River des Peres.

This chapter consists of four sections. A watershed inventoryidentifies and analyzes base line water quality

information that is available for the watershed. A second section identifies nonpoint source stressors, as well

as the inputs that could be associated with the water quality threat or stressor. In addition, the types ofpollutants associated with the nonpoint stressor or threat are identified here. A third section identifies point-

source stressors, and lastly, identification of critical areas is discussed.

WATERSHED INVENTORY

A watershed inventory, below, documents the following: 1) a summary of stakeholder concerns; 2) existing

watershed data, including water quality monitoring and visual assessments conducted by citizen volunteers in

the watershed 3) a discussion of 303(d) classification and impairments 4) interpretation of the data, including

a water quality analysis undertaken by Washington University professor Robert E. Criss; and 5) a summary of

previous studies conducted in the Deer Creek Watershed.

LIST OF STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS

The following list summarizes areas of concern that were expressed during the citizen, community and

technical meetings conducted, as well as from comments posted to the Deer Creek Friends Website. For a

complete accounting of stakeholder comments and concerns, see Appendix 2-A.

1. Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) issues

a. Prioritize establishment of BMPs in headwaters so that upstream sub-watersheds are a manageable

size and additional downstream benefits accrue.

b. For large tracts of land in City of Ladue, BMP maintenance is critical in absence of drainage rules.

c. Guidelines needed for rain garden maintenance.

d. Enforcement of rain garden maintenance needs to be addressed.2. Need for Watershed studies

a. Volume based hydrology study of the entire watershed needed to help facilitate decision-making.

b. Need to review BMPs for detention design.

c. Need for planning study to determine impact of BMP implementation, downspout disconnections, etc.

d. Webster Groves needs model to address infill issues & rain garden placement on many small lots.



34/249


5. Infrastructure Damage

a. Bridge over Deer Creek at McKnight Road is an area of concern.

6. Yard Waste, Trash and Construction Debris

a. Trash is coming downstream and dead trees are blocking flow of stormwater in City of Huntleigh.

b. Flooding north and south of Manchester Road causes lumber to float downstream.

c. A 6 acre property in City of Brentwood is 70% in the floodway and 30% in the floodplain. An

architecture firm is currently using the site to store yard waste, lumber, and construction debris.

d. Debris, contaminates carried with stormwater, and grass clippings find their way into lake at

Brentwood Forest Condominiums in City of Brentwood.

7. Stream Bank Erosion and Sedimentation

a. Stream bank erosion mentioned as problem for City of Huntleigh and City of Des Peres.

b. Bank stabilization needed off Des Peres Road in City of Rock Hill.

c. Badly damaged retaining wall in creek near Glen Creek Lane in City of Ladue.

d. Stream & lake bank erosion a problem for Brentwood Forest Condominiums in City of Brentwood.

e. Damaged and misplaced flagstone riprap that lines drainage channel in City of Ladue due to increased

volume and force of run-off originating near Litzsinger Rd.

8. Downspout Disconnections

a. Increased stress on overland flow needs to be addressed as citizens disconnect downspouts that are

inappropriately connected to the sewer system.

9. Fertilizer and Salt

a. Fertilizers applied to grassy areas, and salt used in the winter on sidewalks run off into lake atBrentwood Forest Condominiums in City of Brentwood.

10. Sink Hole Issues

a. Underground caves and sink holes are predominant in the Deer Creek watershed. Stormwater is

currently flowing into most sink holes. With build-outs occurring these issues will worsen.

b. Shady Creek is a losing stream on one side of Manchester Road.

c. Sinkholes exist adjacent to Oak Valley Drive and to Conway east of Spoede in the City of Frontenac

d. Need to address sinkholes in Tilles Park and in Deerfield Road area.

11. Tree Loss

a. Trees bring value and absorb significant amounts of rainfall. There is a need for tree protection andpreservation incentives and/or ordinances?

b. Assess the environmental impact each type of tree, shrub, grasses etc has, and then promote planting

the best plants.

12. Riparian Corridor Development

a. Coordinate with Great Rivers Greenway to identify areas that are best candidates for greenways.

b. Buy-out existing homes and create green space along creek corridors in Brentwood and Maplewood.

c. Need to prevent people from building too close to the creek in Rock Hill, Webster, and elsewhere.

d. Need to prevent rebuilding at flooded lots across from Litzsinger Road Ecology Center in City of Ladue.

13. Invasive Speciesa. There should be a shift towards a more pervasive and thriving native habitat in the "green edges"

b. Need to eradicate non-natives, like Japanese Bush Honeysuckle.

14. Animal Waste

a. Need to quantify contaminants from animal waste, including a pre-measurement, an intervening

action, and then a post-measurement.



35/249


d. Contact Kirkwood Historical Society for information that exists on north Kirkwood stream headwaters.

e. Springtime wildlife should be considered when planning upcoming events which would involve the

creek ecosystem.

f. Need for signage on Deer Creek where bridges cross it or in parks.

g. Need to record human history of use of small creeks.

h. Education is key so that everyone knows and understands their role.

EXISTING WATERSHED DATA

VOLUNTEER WATERSHED MONITORING EFFORTS AND VISUAL ASSESSMENTS

There is high public interest in the Deer

Creek watershed. As a result many

volunteers with the Missouri Stream Team

volunteer water quality monitoring program

have adopted monitoring sites on Deer

Creek and its tributaries.

Map 2-1indicates the location of volunteer

water quality monitoring site locations that

have monitoring data ranging from ~1993 to

present.

Missouri Stream Teams often perform a

visual inspection during their water quality

monitoring activities. See Appendix 2-B for

a sampling of information obtained from the

Missouri Stream Team database and visual inspections recorded in the Deer Creek watershed beginning in

1998. Additional data can be obtained from the stream team website at

http://www.mostreamteam.org/interactivemap.as.

In addition to performing visual inspections during their water quality monitoring activities, Missouri Stream

Teams also conduct visual assessments during special events, i.e. creek cleanups. On April 25th

, 2009, 571

volunteers collected trash in the City of Ladue in the heart of the watershed. The clean up was sponsored by

the Deer Creek Watershed Alliance, a partnership that includes Missouri Botanical Garden, The City of Ladue,

Stream Team Monitoring Sites (not verified)

Stream Team Monitoring Sites (verified)

Map 2-1: Volunteer water quality monitoring site locations

Source: Missouri Stream Team Website


h l d f


36/249


Visual observations related to organic debris

included comments such as: Incredible amounts

of brush, leaves, trees dumped by adjacenthomeowners, creek choked with honeysuckle,

Lots of brush & large trees need removal ,

Trees and honeysuckle in creek, Creek choked

by honeysuckle, Lots of trees down and brush

collecting on southern edge of Bogey Club / North

end of Winding Brook Lane, Spillways at

northern end of Wenneker & Louwen collect

excessive amounts of debris , At Warson Rd.

huge downed tree is problem, and Too many

fallen trees & brush in creek.

Trash sightings were varied and humorous, with the most frequent offender being plastic bags and newspaper

wrappers. Citizens collected 4.87 tons, or 9,740 pounds of trash during the clean up.

USGS MEASUREMENTS

Six USGS gauging stations are located

throughout the Deer Creek watershed.

There are three USGS stations on Deer

Creek, one on Sebago Creek, one on Black

Creek and one on Twomile Creek (Map 2-2).

Discharge and stage sampling are

continuous; grab samples are random.

Posted online there are 23 sets of data

samples taken 2001-2004; USGS appears to

have done no water quality sampling since

2004.

Water quality parameters monitored byUSGS include water temperature,

instantaneous discharge, dissolved oxygen,

pH, carbon dioxide, carbonate, bi-carbonate,

suspended solids, total nitrogen, organic

Map 2-2: USGS Gauging Station Locations


Ch t 2 El t Id tif i I i t


37/249


LITZSINGER ROAD ECOLOGY CENTER STREAM TEAM DATA

The Litzsinger Road Ecology Center (LREC) Stream Team data is collected on a monthly basis at seven points inthe upper Deer Creek watershed, including the tributaries of Twomile Creek and Sebago Creek. This type of

sampling is ideal for getting a picture of typical conditions in various portions of Deer Creek and its tributaries.

The LREC team is unlikely to be capturing either the highest or lowest values for the parameters that they

measure.

It is important to note that LREC monitors do not collect samples during the high-flow periods associated with

storm flow; LREC does not send staff or volunteers out during or immediately following major rainstorms due

to concerns for their safety. Avoidance of these high-flow conditions results in not measuring water quality

during some of the periods with the greatest loads of pollutants.

High concentrations of chloride have been found during the winter months (particularly early in 2008). These

high concentrations exceed state water pollution limits at four of the seven LREC sites.

There have been several instances in which the saturation of dissolved oxygen was greater than 200% and up

to 346%. This situation is often caused by the excess production of oxygen by algae or macrophytes. This is

symptomatic of a system in which supersaturated daytime conditions are followed by sags in dissolved oxygen

as overnight respiration causes oxygen concentrations to plummet once the sun goes down and

photosynthesis ceases.

Generally, nitrate concentration and turbidity are both below the detection limit of LREC equipment.

However, there are noticeable amounts of turbidity during periods of higher flow. For a detailed analysis of

the water quality monitoring in Deer Creek and its tributaries as conducted by Stream Team 2760, see

Appendix 2-E: Analysis of Stream Team Water Quality Data.

MSD MONITORING

Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District

currently monitors 34 sites throughout

its service area for the Stream

Monitoring Program. The purposeof the Stream Monitoring Program is

to gather information during storm

and non-storm events, to assess the

impacts of CSOs/SSOs and gather

Map 2-3: MSD Monitoring Sites

Source: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District


Chapter 2: Element a Identifying Impairment


38/249


goal for the monitoring program is to monitor all streams monthly.

The current list of parameters for the stream monitoring program is as follows: Chemical Oxygen Demand,

pH, Temperature, Ammonia (as N), Chloride, Dissolved Oxygen, E- coli, Enterococcus, Fecal Streptococci,

Hardness, Cadmium dissolved, Chromium dissolved, Copper dissolved, Iron dissolved, Lead dissolved, Nickel

dissolved and Zinc dissolved. In order to determine impact from the various contributing streams, sampling

locations were established at the mouth of the contributing stream.

As part of the Stream Monitoring Program, Deer Creek is one of the streams being sampled. Historically there

have been three sampling sites in the Deer Creek watershed. While the physical locations of these sites might

have changed over time, sample locations were established to identify other streams which might impact Deer

Creek. The streams impacting Deer Creek are Black, Twomile, and Shady Grove (Map 2-3).

Site 009 monitors the water quality of Shady Grove Creek before it enters Deer Creek. Site 017 monitors the

water quality of Twomile Creek before it enters Deer Creek. Site 020 monitors the water quality of Black

Creek before it enter Deer Creek. After being mixed with Black, Twomile and Shady Grove creeks, Site 067

monitors Deer Creeks water quality before it enters the River Des Peres.

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY STABLE ISOTOPE LAB (WUSIL)

The Washington University Stable Isotope Lab (WUSIL) studies the regional hydrology of the City of St. Louis

and St. Louis County by the examining historical records, stable isotopes, and water quality parameters to

determine the effects of urban development on flood severity, water chemistry, karst landscapes, stream

discharge, and shallow groundwater as well as the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) used to

remediate problems found in urban watersheds. The WUSIL conducted biweekly sampling operations in the

Deer Creek basin during Fall 2008. The primary objectives were to identify and quantify the timing and

magnitude of organic related pollutants in the targeted streams, which was viewed as background data

needed for the development of better guidelines for BMPs. The monitoring effort included field data (specific

conductivity, temperature, pH, DO, and turbidity) and laboratory work (total coliform, E. coli,

ammonia, nitrate, phosphorus, and chloride). Monitoring practices consist of four types of activities;

continuous monitoring of water levels or water quality, quantifying rainfall amounts, grab sampling, and

automated storm water sampling. Six sampling sites located at US Geological Survey (USGS) gauging stations

in the Deer Creek watershed are monitored by grab sampling and historically many more creeks and rivers

have been sampled throughout the city and county. WUSIL will also be setting up sampling sites at three

BMPs located in the Deer Creek. In addition to these locations, WUSIL also analyzed discharge and water

quality data obtained by the USGS and the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (see report, below).


Chapter 2: Element a Identifying Impairment


39/249


2010 proposed list as impaired for low dissolved oxygen with the source shown as unknown. Water quality

improvements in the Deer Creek Watershed will have a positive effect on River des Peres.

Both Deer Creek and Black Creek are classified streams 1.6. miles up from mouth in the revised 9-30-2009

Code of State Regulations (CSR). The listing is in 10 CSR Division 20, Chapter 7 Water Quality, Table H

Stream Classifications and Use Designations available at http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/10csr/

10c20-7.pdf.

These streams have designated uses of whole body contact, which is referred to as Category B (206 E.coli

bacteria/100 mL) and secondary contact recreation 1134 E. coli bacteria/100 mL). For most protection, this

report will assess the designated use for whole body contact, or Category B. This category applies to those

water bodies designated for whole body contact recreation not contained within Category A. While secondary

contact recreation uses include fishing, wading, commercial and recreational boating, and limited contact

incidental to shoreline activities, and activities in which users do not swim or float in the water. The following

reflects the information contained in Code of State Regulations (CSR) Table H for Black Creek and Deer Creek:

WATER BODY CLASS MILES FROM TO COUNTY COUNTY 2 IRR LWW AQL CLF CDF WBC SCR DWS IND

Black Cr. P 1.6 Mouth 21,45N,6E St. Louis x x B x

Deer Cr. P 1.6 Mouth 1930,45N,6E St. Louis City St. Louis x x B x

P- Permanently Flowing, IRR-Irrigation, CLF-Cool Water Fishery, SCR-Secondary Contact Recreation, LWW-Livestock & Wildlife Watering ,CDF-

Cold Water Fishery, DWS-Drinking Water Supply, AQL-Protection of Warm Water Aquatic Life, WBC-Whole Body Contact Recreation , IND-

Industrial

WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS

Pollutant loads have been determined by assessing water monitoring information collected from four sources:

1) water quality data collected at USGS monitoring stations; 2) Stream Team volunteer water monitoring data

collected under the guidance of Danelle Haake, an aquatic ecologist and trained water quality monitor

employed by Litzsinger Road Ecology Center (LREC), a division of Missouri Botanical Garden; 3) water quality

data collected and supplied by Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District; and 4) water quality data collected by

Washington University Stable Isotope Lab (WUSIL). These four sources of data have been used to establish

baseline water quality data for the Deer Creek Watershed. Careful interpretation of any available water

quality data is necessary to ensure comparability. When referencing existing water quality data, the reviewer

needs to consider monitoring purpose, frequency, timing, collection and analytical methods. The following

information provides a general overview of the data collected within the Deer Creek watershed. As additional

water quality data becomes available, the data will be assessed and used where appropriate.




40/249


WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY WATER QUALITY REPORT

Robert E. Criss and Elizabeth A. Hasenmueller

Data Availability

Significant, reliable data on the water quality parameters in Deer Creek have been measured by several

different agencies and groups, notably the US Geological Survey (USGS), the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer

District (MSD), the Litzsinger Road Ecology Center Stream Team (LREC), and the Washington University Stable

Isotope Lab (WUSIL). The number of samples analyzed is significant and the information is up to date. The

consistency of the data establishes that their reliability is very good to excellent. However, some sampling

bias exists; for example, the LREC and WUSIL data bases include fewer samples representing above averageflow conditions than do the MSD or USGS data sets, and the WUSIL data include few winter samples so the

reported chloride levels are lower.

Identified Impairments

Selected reaches of St. Louis County creeks have been placed on the 303d list for high chloride (e.g., River des

Peres), bacteria (e.g., Creve Coeur Ck.), and low D.O. (e.g., Fishpot Ck), and some for all three (e.g., Coldwater

Ck. and Gravois Ck.; see MoDNR, 2009a). Available data indicates that many reaches of Deer Creek are asimpaired in these pollutants as are those listed examples.

The methods used below for assessing compliance with the EPA water quality standards are taken from

MoDNR (2009b), and regard standards that apply to the Protection of Aquatic Life (AQL) or for category B

recreational waters. Specifically:

Low D.O.: No more than 10% of all samples exceed criterion (5 mg/L for AQL).

Chloride: No more than one acute toxic event in 3 yearsE. coli: Water quality standards not exceeded as a geometric mean (206 E.Coli bacteria/100mL)

in any of the last three years, for samples collected during Apr 1 to Oct 31.

Table 2-1 summarizes the available water quality data for Deer Creek and several of its tributaries for the

aforementioned parameters. The data establish anomalously low D.O. values in several reaches, and a

particularly low mean value (7.1 mg/L) for D.O. for Deer Creek at Maplewood, where 17% of all samples

analyzed by USGS have less oxygen than the mandated minimum of 5 mg/L. This condition is chronic at this

site during the warm period of late April through August, when the mean D.O. is only 4.8 m/L. Thus, this sitealone establishes that low D.O. conditions exist in the Deer Creek watershed.

Table 2-1 also establishes that high chloride events in Deer Creek are common over lengthy reaches. The

problems are most severe in the lower part of the basin, at and below the Rock Hill site, including the Black

C k t ib t I th th hl id t ti t i ll d th l l f 230 /L




41/249

p fy g p

the tributary at Chaminade, and especially the Twomile Creek are much less impaired by chloride; these

watersheds have a lower population density.

Finally, Table 2-1 establishes that unhealthy levels of E. coliare common over lengthy reaches of Deer Creek.

The problems are most severe in the lower part of the basin, at and below the Rock Hill site, including the

Black Creek tributary. Note that the geometric means for most of the WUSIL sites are minimum values, as E.

coli levels in several individual samples exceeded the upper limit (2420 col/dL) for the techniques used in that

lab. Further study is needed in order to assess the lower geometric means for the MSD sites of Drury Avenue

and Breckinridge Industrial Court when compared to other MSD, USGS or WUSIL data.

Table 2-1: Summary Water Quality Data for Deer Creek and Several Tributaries

Site Name Site # D.O.

min mean

max

(# of

samples)

% of all

samples 230

mg/l

E coli

Geometric

Mean

(# of samples)

Sampling

Period

Data

Source

Deer Creek @ Ladue 07010075 3 8.1

18.6 (23)

13 94 256

430 (6)

50 1301 (14) May 2001 to

Aug 2004

USGS

Black Creek near

Brentwood

07010082 7 9.2

15.2 (6)

0 180 455

730 (2)

50 1543 (3) Dec 2003 to

Aug 2004

USGS

Deer Creek

@Maplewood

07010086 2.4 7.1

12.2 (23)

17 160 407

800 (6)

50 1860 (13) May 2001 to

Aug 2004

USGS

Deer Creek @ Drury

Ave.

N/A 4 9.3

13.9 (36)

3 16 301

3400 (36)

28 171 (9) Feb 2006 to

May 2009

MSD

Deer Creek @

Breckenridge

Industrial Ct.

N/A 3.5 8.2

13.3 (37)

5 20 239

2710 (37)

16 120 (11) Feb 2006 to

June 2009

MSD

Deer Creek @ Big

Bend Ave.

N/A 5.3 7.5

11.0 (11)

0 34 151

640 (11)

18 3090 (4) May 2006 to

July 2009

MSD

Deer Creek @ Malcom

Terrace Park

N/A 6 10.3 20

(16)

0 30 203

592 (16)

13 NA Feb 2008 to

Sept 2009

LREC*

Tributary @

Chaminade

N/A 1 9.6 23

(17)

6 130 162

409 (16)

25 NA Feb 2008 to

Sept 2009

LREC

Deer Creek @ Log

Cabin Ln.

N/A 7 12.6 28

(16)

0 30 174

1375 (17)

12 NA Feb 2008 to

Sept 2009

LREC

Deer Creek @ LREC 07010055 4 8.8 26

(17)

6 42 123

600 (17)

6 NA Feb 2008 to

Sept 2009

LREC

Deer Creek @ Rock

Hill

07010075 3 10.1 21

(16)

6 43 173

1048 (15)

20 NA Feb 2008 to

Sept 2009

LREC

Sebago Creek @ Old

Warson Rd.

07010070 3 10.6 21

(18)

6 35 175

504 (18)

17 NA Feb 2008 to

Sept 2009

LREC

Twomile Creek @

Overbrook

07010061 3 8.7 18

(17)

12 31 42

65 (17)

0 NA Feb 2008 to

Sept 2009

LREC

Twomile Creek @ 07010061 5 3 8 4 0 29 36 0 73 (4) Sept 2008 to WUSIL




42/249

Litzinger Rd. @ Ladue 12.4 (8) 104 (6) Dec 2008

Deer Creek @ Ladue 07010075 2.5 9.2

13.5 (7)

14 24 68

104 (5)

0 > 665 (3) Sept 2008 to

Dec 2008

WUSIL

Deer Creek @Maplewood

07010086 3.7 7.811.4 (9)

22 43 107166 (6)

0 > 671 (4) Sept 2008 toDec 2008

WUSIL

*LREC is the Litzsinger Road Ecology Center

DEER CREEK TSS ANALYSIS

The chart at right is a scatter plot of USGS data on

suspended solids at the Maplewood monitoring station on

Deer Creek. This monitoring station is located at the

furthest downstream point in the Deer Creek Watershed

before Deer Creek enters the River Des Peres. The chart

shows a relationship between suspend solids and volume

of discharge into the stream at this site. Overall, greater

discharge volume is associated with higher TSS levels.

PREVIOUS WATERSHED ASSESSMENT STUDIES

AND REPORTS

This watershed planning document does not represent the first time that Deer Creek has been studied or

analyzed. Numerous studies have been conducted in the Deer Creek watershed, dating back as far as 1963.

Following is a known list of studies implemented to date:

A Study of Wat er Quality in Deer Creek, Metropolitan St . Lou is Se wer District, St . L ouis County Aug

1963 This study was completed by the Missouri Water Pollution Control Board following the construction of

a trunk sewer from the City of Kirkwood to its confluence with River Des Peres. Four sites were chosen along

Deer Creek and tests were conducted on the physical, chemical, biological, and bacteriological characteristics

of the creek over a three-day period.

Study of the Ecology of Deer C reek, St. Louis County, 1973 By Walter Zachritz, Jr. , zoology student at

University of Washington. This study is a survey of watershed flora, fauna, weather and creek conditions at

selected sites in the watershed.

RIver Des Peres Inter im Flood Protection Plan, Feb 1974 This study was prepared by St. Louis City, St.

Louis County, MSD and the Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District.

Metropolitan Sewer District: Deer Creek Drainage Survey Phase I Stormwater Management Program




43/249

Metropolitan Sewer District: Executive Summary Phase I Stormwater Management Program, Feb 1981

Studies performed on 14 different watersheds throughout MSDs district using computer mod

deer creek watershed plan (combined).pdf

Documents